Aversionbmx
A tag has been placed on Aversion bmx, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mhking 22:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- why?
- stop controlling the internet and be a person. talk to me...
Deletion of Aversion bmx edit
Mhking's reason that is presented above provides a good explanation of why the article was deleted (and will be deleted again). Please review our policy on spam, our criteria for speedy deletion and our policy on conflicts of interest. In many cases an article can be posted in userspace until it is encyclopedia worthy (i.e. User:Aversionbmx/Aversion bmx), but I do not feel that this is such a case because spam fits within the general criteria for speedy deletion (G11) and thus applies to all areas of wikipedia. Please do not repost this article. If you still feel the article should be kept, please go to deletion review. Sorry I could not be more helpful. Wikipedia is just not the place for these sort of articles. Best, IronGargoyle 22:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I see now that the article has already been deleted a few times. Generally, new editors creating the same article over and over are viewed as vandals, whether fairly or not. If something has already been deleted, the least you can do is provide evidence in the article about why it shouldn't be again. However, I have a few comments to make. Firstly, talk page procedures- don't presume I know which article you are talking about, sign your posts with a ~~~~ and make a new section. Don't stress about the article being 'incomplete'- worry about the notability of the subject, as talked about at WP:CORP. Also, please realise that it is frowned upon to write articles about yourself or your company, as is explained here. Also, in response to you complaining about template messages above- there are far too many new articles needing attention (with many of them created by vandals of some description) to leave intricate, detailed, personalised messages on each persons talk page. So, instead, we use templates, and answer if the person cares to follow the issue up in some way, as you have, and I am doing. Contact me if I can be of any help. J Milburn 23:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)